Seems to be a straight up case of Apple once again stealing something and then pleading that because people enjoy it so much they should be allowed to keep using it.Blind people need phones but Apple screwed them over by stealing a technology that wasn't theirs to begin with.Sure some may argue that a button that describes what's on the screen is an obvious invention, but they'd also argue that having a phone be rectangular was obvious and we all know that particular innovation was groundbreaking when Apple came up with it.

Actor_au:Seems to be a straight up case of Apple once again stealing something and then pleading that because people enjoy it so much they should be allowed to keep using it.Blind people need phones but Apple screwed them over by stealing a technology that wasn't theirs to begin with.Sure some may argue that a button that describes what's on the screen is an obvious invention, but they'd also argue that having a phone be rectangular was obvious and we all know that particular innovation was groundbreaking when Apple came up with it.

Did Samsung make a big deal of this or did Apple go all whiny and say "see were trying to help the poor disabled people but those mean nasty people at Samsung are trying to enforce a patent that they own"

Actor_au:Seems to be a straight up case of Apple once again stealing something and then pleading that because people enjoy it so much they should be allowed to keep using it.Blind people need phones but Apple screwed them over by stealing a technology that wasn't theirs to begin with.Sure some may argue that a button that describes what's on the screen is an obvious invention, but they'd also argue that having a phone be rectangular was obvious and we all know that particular innovation was groundbreaking when Apple came up with it.

This was foreseeable... courts all over the place have been shifting to viewing patents as economic forces, rather than strict property, and accordingly except in rare cases, money is the appropriate remedy for infringement, rather than an injunction.

Frankly, I think it's a good thing... injunctions are really way too big of a stick, and are used by trolls to extort larger settlements than are reasonable due to fear by the infringer that they could lose their entire business. Pretty much the only time they should be used are with design patents where specific look and feel is associated with the patent owner, and infringement is really closer to copying trade dress.

BizarreMan:Actor_au: Seems to be a straight up case of Apple once again stealing something and then pleading that because people enjoy it so much they should be allowed to keep using it.Blind people need phones but Apple screwed them over by stealing a technology that wasn't theirs to begin with.Sure some may argue that a button that describes what's on the screen is an obvious invention, but they'd also argue that having a phone be rectangular was obvious and we all know that particular innovation was groundbreaking when Apple came up with it.

Definitely this.

Yeah... except for the fact that the patent didn't really claim "a button that describes what's on the screen" and the design patent didn't just claim "having a phone be rectangular". But other than the entire premise of his argument, he's right.

Theaetetus:This was foreseeable... courts all over the place have been shifting to viewing patents as economic forces, rather than strict property, and accordingly except in rare cases, money is the appropriate remedy for infringement, rather than an injunction.

Frankly, I think it's a good thing... injunctions are really way too big of a stick, and are used by trolls to extort larger settlements than are reasonable due to fear by the infringer that they could lose their entire business. Pretty much the only time they should be used are with design patents where specific look and feel is associated with the patent owner, and infringement is really closer to copying trade dress.

Which would be fair for Apple if it was enough for Apple when harassing Samsung. Instead Samsung had flat-out injunctions against selling many models of phones in many countries. The equality of justice should say that any infringements from Apple should also be held under injunctions.

Quantumbunny:Theaetetus: This was foreseeable... courts all over the place have been shifting to viewing patents as economic forces, rather than strict property, and accordingly except in rare cases, money is the appropriate remedy for infringement, rather than an injunction.

Frankly, I think it's a good thing... injunctions are really way too big of a stick, and are used by trolls to extort larger settlements than are reasonable due to fear by the infringer that they could lose their entire business. Pretty much the only time they should be used are with design patents where specific look and feel is associated with the patent owner, and infringement is really closer to copying trade dress.

Which would be fair for Apple if it was enough for Apple when harassing Samsung. Instead Samsung had flat-out injunctions against selling many models of phones in many countries. The equality of justice should say that any infringements from Apple should also be held under injunctions.

One company made a complete knockoff, changing only the logo; the other did not.

Theaetetus:BizarreMan: Actor_au: Seems to be a straight up case of Apple once again stealing something and then pleading that because people enjoy it so much they should be allowed to keep using it.Blind people need phones but Apple screwed them over by stealing a technology that wasn't theirs to begin with.Sure some may argue that a button that describes what's on the screen is an obvious invention, but they'd also argue that having a phone be rectangular was obvious and we all know that particular innovation was groundbreaking when Apple came up with it.

Definitely this.

Yeah... except for the fact that the patent didn't really claim "a button that describes what's on the screen" and the design patent didn't just claim "having a phone be rectangular". But other than the entire premise of his argument, he's right.

He's just simplifying so fan boys can understand. You know, like a single button or only being able to perform one task at a time?

I'm guessing most of the people siding with Samsung in this thread have never used VoiceOver. When it's activated, tapping anywhere on the screen describes what you just tapped on, and double tapping activates that button. You can set it to activate/deactivate by triple-clicking the home button, but that's not the default setting, and you can set it to always on. Samsung's argument that it's "a button that describes what's on the screen" is tenuous at best, and pretty dickish.

Actor_au:Seems to be a straight up case of Apple once again stealing something and then pleading that because people enjoy it so much they should be allowed to keep using it.Blind people need phones but Apple screwed them over by stealing a technology that wasn't theirs to begin with.Sure some may argue that a button that describes what's on the screen is an obvious invention, but they'd also argue that having a phone be rectangular was obvious and we all know that particular innovation was groundbreaking when Apple came up with it.

I guess you're being a little hyperbolic when you say apple "stole" something, but yeah, Apple's definitely the bigger hypocrite.

Because hey, this is how innovations come to the market at competitive prices, right?

Actor_au:Seems to be a straight up case of Apple once again stealing something and then pleading that because people enjoy it so much they should be allowed to keep using it.Blind people need phones but Apple screwed them over by stealing a technology that wasn't theirs to begin with.Sure some may argue that a button that describes what's on the screen is an obvious invention, but they'd also argue that having a phone be rectangular was obvious and we all know that particular innovation was groundbreaking when Apple came up with it.

Incidentally, here is Samsung's corresponding US patent. The claims may not be exactly identical, but they're probably pretty close.

1. A device for outputting, as a voice, data information displayed on a display section of a portable telephone, comprising:

an audio output key for selecting an audio output mode of the portable telephone;a memory for storing data displayed on the display section of the portable telephone;an audio memory for storing audio data corresponding to the audio output mode of the portable telephone;an audio processing section for modulating an audio signal inputted from a microphone, for converting said audio signal into audio data, for demodulating audio data inputted from an RF processing section and audio data stored in the audio memory to convert into an audio signal, and for outputting said audio signal as a voice; anda control section, when each of a plurality of mode selecting keys is depressed while a predetermined audio output mode is selected by manipulation of the audio output key to control the data read out from the memory and the audio data read out from the audio memory so that the audio data is outputted as a voice through the audio processing section and a speaker. If the German one has corresponding claims, I can see several reasons that the iPhone wouldn't infringe.

I usually side against Apple because they are sue happy over stupid shiat. This time, however, I'm going to have to say Samsung is being the ass. Press a button to describe the screen? Why was that ever granted a patent? That's the very essence of "obvious".

All I know is that I love my Samsung Galaxy Exhibit, and that I would consider an iPhone only if they could offer me a plan that costs $50 a month for unlimited text/data/talk (and didn't require me to buy a $600 iPhone from Virgin).

On T-Mobile, I can get away with limited text/talk/data for $30 a month on an Android phone, or $50 for unlimited. Why would I pay $80 to $120 per month for iPhone's plans when I have that option?

digistil:Quantumbunny: Theaetetus: This was foreseeable... courts all over the place have been shifting to viewing patents as economic forces, rather than strict property, and accordingly except in rare cases, money is the appropriate remedy for infringement, rather than an injunction.

Frankly, I think it's a good thing... injunctions are really way too big of a stick, and are used by trolls to extort larger settlements than are reasonable due to fear by the infringer that they could lose their entire business. Pretty much the only time they should be used are with design patents where specific look and feel is associated with the patent owner, and infringement is really closer to copying trade dress.

Which would be fair for Apple if it was enough for Apple when harassing Samsung. Instead Samsung had flat-out injunctions against selling many models of phones in many countries. The equality of justice should say that any infringements from Apple should also be held under injunctions.

One company made a complete knockoff, changing only the logo; the other did not.

OgreMagi:I usually side against Apple because they are sue happy over stupid shiat. This time, however, I'm going to have to say Samsung is being the ass. Press a button to describe the screen? Why was that ever granted a patent? That's the very essence of "obvious".

Sure, but their patent claim isn't:1. A method of describing a screen, comprising:receiving a button press; andresponsive to the button press, describing the screen.

That would indeed be quite obvious. Button presses exist. Describing screens exists. The combination is therefore obvious.But that's not what they claimed. They claimed:1. A device for outputting, as a voice, data information displayed on a display section of a portable telephone, comprising:an audio output key for selecting an audio output mode of the portable telephone;a memory for storing data displayed on the display section of the portable telephone;an audio memory for storing audio data corresponding to the audio output mode of the portable telephone;an audio processing section for modulating an audio signal inputted from a microphone, for converting said audio signal into audio data, for demodulating audio data inputted from an RF processing section and audio data stored in the audio memory to convert into an audio signal, and for outputting said audio signal as a voice; anda control section, when each of a plurality of mode selecting keys is depressed while a predetermined audio output mode is selected by manipulation of the audio output key to control the data read out from the memory and the audio data read out from the audio memory so that the audio data is outputted as a voice through the audio processing section and a speaker.

And under the same analysis, it's a bit tougher to show that's obvious. Keys, memory, and processing sections exist... but can you name any device prior to this patent that had you depress multiple mode selecting keys simultaneously while manipulating an audio output key to select a predetermined audio output mode? That seems like a recipe for arthritis, frankly. It's also the first thing that jumps to mind as to why an iPhone, with its single button, wouldn't infringe.

Theaetetus:OgreMagi: I usually side against Apple because they are sue happy over stupid shiat. This time, however, I'm going to have to say Samsung is being the ass. Press a button to describe the screen? Why was that ever granted a patent? That's the very essence of "obvious".

Sure, but their patent claim isn't:1. A method of describing a screen, comprising:receiving a button press; andresponsive to the button press, describing the screen.

That would indeed be quite obvious. Button presses exist. Describing screens exists. The combination is therefore obvious.But that's not what they claimed. They claimed:1. A device for outputting, as a voice, data information displayed on a display section of a portable telephone, comprising:an audio output key for selecting an audio output mode of the portable telephone;a memory for storing data displayed on the display section of the portable telephone;an audio memory for storing audio data corresponding to the audio output mode of the portable telephone;an audio processing section for modulating an audio signal inputted from a microphone, for converting said audio signal into audio data, for demodulating audio data inputted from an RF processing section and audio data stored in the audio memory to convert into an audio signal, and for outputting said audio signal as a voice; anda control section, when each of a plurality of mode selecting keys is depressed while a predetermined audio output mode is selected by manipulation of the audio output key to control the data read out from the memory and the audio data read out from the audio memory so that the audio data is outputted as a voice through the audio processing section and a speaker.

And under the same analysis, it's a bit tougher to show that's obvious. Keys, memory, and processing sections exist... but can you name any device prior to this patent that had you depress multiple mode selecting keys simultaneously while manipulating an audio output key to select a pred ...

Using some convoluted sequence to describe it does not change it's basic functionality, which is "press a button for audio."

OgreMagi:Using some convoluted sequence to describe it does not change its basic functionality, which is "press a button for audio." "The Prius may be a gas/electric hybrid with a novel planetary engine, but it doesn't change its basic functionality, which is 'transport people from point A to point B.' Therefore, it's entirely obvious."

Doesn't work that way. You're complaining that the patent is obvious, but you acknowledge that the patent claims are different, and you're really complaining about the basic functionality being obvious. Well, that's entirely true: the basic functionality is obvious, just like the basic functionality of a car, or even Google's self-driving car, is obvious. But the patent doesn't cover the basic functionality, and something else with the same "basic functionality" that has a different implementation doesn't infringe the patent.

OgreMagi:I usually side against Apple because they are sue happy over stupid shiat.

What do you expect? They're trying to prevent Android from doing to iOS what Windows did to the Mac.

People forget the reason Apple couldn't sue Windows out of existence was not because of Xerox inventing everything first (they didn't) but because Microsoft got a license from Apple in exchange for Microsoft making GUI versions of Word and Excel for the Mac first. Apple thought Windows 1.0 wasn't a threat and didn't realize the license would cover future versions, which courts ruled it did.

This history makes it inevitable that Apple is hyper-protective of it's IP today.

OgreMagi:Theaetetus: OgreMagi: I usually side against Apple because they are sue happy over stupid shiat. This time, however, I'm going to have to say Samsung is being the ass. Press a button to describe the screen? Why was that ever granted a patent? That's the very essence of "obvious".

Sure, but their patent claim isn't:1. A method of describing a screen, comprising:receiving a button press; andresponsive to the button press, describing the screen.

That would indeed be quite obvious. Button presses exist. Describing screens exists. The combination is therefore obvious.But that's not what they claimed. They claimed:1. A device for outputting, as a voice, data information displayed on a display section of a portable telephone, comprising:an audio output key for selecting an audio output mode of the portable telephone;a memory for storing data displayed on the display section of the portable telephone;an audio memory for storing audio data corresponding to the audio output mode of the portable telephone;an audio processing section for modulating an audio signal inputted from a microphone, for converting said audio signal into audio data, for demodulating audio data inputted from an RF processing section and audio data stored in the audio memory to convert into an audio signal, and for outputting said audio signal as a voice; anda control section, when each of a plurality of mode selecting keys is depressed while a predetermined audio output mode is selected by manipulation of the audio output key to control the data read out from the memory and the audio data read out from the audio memory so that the audio data is outputted as a voice through the audio processing section and a speaker.

And under the same analysis, it's a bit tougher to show that's obvious. Keys, memory, and processing sections exist... but can you name any device prior to this patent that had you depress multiple mode selecting keys simultaneously while manipulating an audio output key to s ...

Actor_au:Seems to be a straight up case of Apple once again stealing something and then pleading that because people enjoy it so much they should be allowed to keep using it.Blind people need phones but Apple screwed them over by stealing a technology that wasn't theirs to begin with.Sure some may argue that a button that describes what's on the screen is an obvious invention, but they'd also argue that having a phone be rectangular was obvious and we all know that particular innovation was groundbreaking when Apple came up with it.

Tourney3p0:Theaetetus: Yeah... except for the fact that the patent didn't really claim "a button that describes what's on the screen"

Theaetetus: 1. A device for outputting, as a voice, data information displayed on a display section of a portable telephone, comprising:

Have you ever noticed that you're often willing to completely contradict yourself in the name of corporate fellatio?

Have you ever noticed that you cut someone off in mid-paragraph in a futile attempt to show them being hypocritical, when (a) the rest of the paragraph refutes that, and (b) it's available to everyone else in the thread?

Pro-tip: if you have a real argument, you don't need to remove context or clip sentences~

1. A device for outputting, as a voice, data information displayed on a display section of a portable telephone, comprising:an audio output key for selecting an audio output mode of the portable telephone;a memory for storing data displayed on the display section of the portable telephone;an audio memory for storing audio data corresponding to the audio output mode of the portable telephone;an audio processing section for modulating an audio signal inputted from a microphone, for converting said audio signal into audio data, for demodulating audio data inputted from an RF processing section and audio data stored in the audio memory to convert into an audio signal, and for outputting said audio signal as a voice; anda control section, when each of a plurality of mode selecting keys is depressed while a predetermined audio output mode is selected by manipulation of the audio output key to control the data read out from the memory and the audio data read out from the audio memory so that the audio data is outputted as a voice through the audio processing section and a speaker.So. A button. That you press. To get audio.Everything else is window dressing. Audio memory, audio processing, audio output, button activator. This sounds like a farking walkman.

Kinek: 1. A device for outputting, as a voice, data information displayed on a display section of a portable telephone, comprising:an audio output key for selecting an audio output mode of the portable telephone;a memory for storing data displayed on the display section of the portable telephone;an audio memory for storing audio data corresponding to the audio output mode of the portable telephone;an audio processing section for modulating an audio signal inputted from a microphone, for converting said audio signal into audio data, for demodulating audio data inputted from an RF processing section and audio data stored in the audio memory to convert into an audio signal, and for outputting said audio signal as a voice; anda control section, when each of a plurality of mode selecting keys is depressed while a predetermined audio output mode is selected by manipulation of the audio output key to control the data read out from the memory and the audio data read out from the audio memory so that the audio data is outputted as a voice through the audio processing section and a speaker.

Theaetetus:OgreMagi:Using some convoluted sequence to describe it does not change its basic functionality, which is "press a button for audio." "The Prius may be a gas/electric hybrid with a novel planetary engine, but it doesn't change its basic functionality, which is 'transport people from point A to point B.' Therefore, it's entirely obvious."

Doesn't work that way. You're complaining that the patent is obvious, but you acknowledge that the patent claims are different, and you're really complaining about the basic functionality being obvious. Well, that's entirely true: the basic functionality is obvious, just like the basic functionality of a car, or even Google's self-driving car, is obvious. But the patent doesn't cover the basic functionality, and something else with the same "basic functionality" that has a different implementation doesn't infringe the patent.

More accurately, it would be pressing the gas pedal down will make the car accelerate, so I don't think your example is either accurate or doing your argument any good.

machodonkeywrestler:Theaetetus: OgreMagi:Using some convoluted sequence to describe it does not change its basic functionality, which is "press a button for audio." "The Prius may be a gas/electric hybrid with a novel planetary engine, but it doesn't change its basic functionality, which is 'transport people from point A to point B.' Therefore, it's entirely obvious."

Doesn't work that way. You're complaining that the patent is obvious, but you acknowledge that the patent claims are different, and you're really complaining about the basic functionality being obvious. Well, that's entirely true: the basic functionality is obvious, just like the basic functionality of a car, or even Google's self-driving car, is obvious. But the patent doesn't cover the basic functionality, and something else with the same "basic functionality" that has a different implementation doesn't infringe the patent.

More accurately, it would be pressing the gas pedal down will make the car accelerate, so I don't think your example is either accurate or doing your argument any good.

In patent lawyer speak, it would be:

In order to make the car go: We use the laws of chemical combustion to trigger explosions that turn the wheels when an accelerator is pressed, but only when the key is in the lock and the gears are set to drive and .........and after step 37, the car goes forward, but only on Tuesdays, and only if it's after lunch, and you've got your haircut and have moved your brother's coat to the lower peg.

Seriously. Patent claims are obfuscatory as fark in order to try and hide the fact that they're unoriginal, obvious, and retarded.

I see memory(the cylinder), processing(The needle), converter(Also the needle), and speaker(Obvious). It's not digital though. But if you could hook this up to a screen and phone, you could get sued by Samsung!